Cognitive control, stress, and depressive symptoms: A short-term longitudinal test of the Dual Mechanisms of Control framework

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Akihiro Masuyama
{"title":"Cognitive control, stress, and depressive symptoms: A short-term longitudinal test of the Dual Mechanisms of Control framework","authors":"Akihiro Masuyama","doi":"10.1016/j.jbtep.2026.102100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Depression has been linked to impairments in cognitive control, particularly proactive control within the Dual Mechanisms of Control framework, yet little is known about how proactive control, perceived stress, and depressive symptoms co-vary within and between individuals over time. In a three-wave online study, 195 adults completed monthly assessments of depressive symptoms, perceived stress, and an AX Continuous Performance Task. Random Effects Within–Between (REWB) models were used as the primary analytic approach to examine between-person differences and within-person month-to-month deviations in perceived stress and proactive control, whereas Cross-Lagged Panel Models (CLPMs) and Random Intercept CLPMs (RI-CLPMs) were estimated as auxiliary analyses. Across reaction-time and error-rate REWB models, perceived stress showed robust positive associations with depressive symptoms at both levels. Proactive control showed no consistent effects when stress was at its mean level, but small within-person perceived stress × proactive control interactions indicated weaker concurrent stress–depression coupling during higher-than-usual stress periods. In contrast, CLPM and RI-CLPM showed poor fit and negligible cross-lagged effects. Overall, proactive control appears to function primarily as a modest, context-dependent moderator of stress–depression covariation rather than a strong longitudinal driver of change.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48198,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 102100"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791626000157","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Depression has been linked to impairments in cognitive control, particularly proactive control within the Dual Mechanisms of Control framework, yet little is known about how proactive control, perceived stress, and depressive symptoms co-vary within and between individuals over time. In a three-wave online study, 195 adults completed monthly assessments of depressive symptoms, perceived stress, and an AX Continuous Performance Task. Random Effects Within–Between (REWB) models were used as the primary analytic approach to examine between-person differences and within-person month-to-month deviations in perceived stress and proactive control, whereas Cross-Lagged Panel Models (CLPMs) and Random Intercept CLPMs (RI-CLPMs) were estimated as auxiliary analyses. Across reaction-time and error-rate REWB models, perceived stress showed robust positive associations with depressive symptoms at both levels. Proactive control showed no consistent effects when stress was at its mean level, but small within-person perceived stress × proactive control interactions indicated weaker concurrent stress–depression coupling during higher-than-usual stress periods. In contrast, CLPM and RI-CLPM showed poor fit and negligible cross-lagged effects. Overall, proactive control appears to function primarily as a modest, context-dependent moderator of stress–depression covariation rather than a strong longitudinal driver of change.
认知控制、压力和抑郁症状:双重控制机制框架的短期纵向测试
抑郁症与认知控制的损伤有关,特别是在双重控制机制框架内的主动控制,然而,人们对主动控制、感知压力和抑郁症状如何在个体内部和个体之间随时间共同变化知之甚少。在一项三波在线研究中,195名成年人完成了抑郁症状、感知压力和AX连续表现任务的月度评估。随机效应间(REWB)模型被用作主要分析方法来检验感知压力和主动控制方面的人与人之间的差异和人与月之间的偏差,而交叉滞后面板模型(clpm)和随机截距clpm (ri - clpm)被估计为辅助分析。在反应时间和错误率REWB模型中,感知压力在两个水平上都显示出与抑郁症状的显著正相关。当压力处于平均水平时,主动控制的影响不一致,但在高压力时期,较小的个人感知压力与主动控制的相互作用表明较弱的同时压力-抑郁耦合。CLPM与RI-CLPM拟合较差,交叉滞后效应可忽略。总体而言,主动控制似乎主要作为一种适度的、情境依赖的压力-抑郁共变调节因子,而不是一种强大的变化纵向驱动因子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The publication of the book Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition (1958) by the co-founding editor of this Journal, Joseph Wolpe, marked a major change in the understanding and treatment of mental disorders. The book used principles from empirical behavioral science to explain psychopathological phenomena and the resulting explanations were critically tested and used to derive effective treatments. The second half of the 20th century saw this rigorous scientific approach come to fruition. Experimental approaches to psychopathology, in particular those used to test conditioning theories and cognitive theories, have steadily expanded, and experimental analysis of processes characterising and maintaining mental disorders have become an established research area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书